Sparks v. Queen[1964]

7/29/2019 Sparks v. Queen[1964]

1/29

9 6 4 HOUSE OP LORDS [ 1 9 6 4 ]

P. C. general proposit ion tha t if a ma n acqu ires and pays for stock- in-

19 64 trade for his own bus ines s on th e tak ing over of ano ther he is not

; " ent itl ed to set off agai nst the gross proceeds of realis ing th e stock

OP TAXES * n e identifiable cost of acquiring it. Howeve r th at may be,> neither of the determining elements in the John Smith case

12is

CONSOLIDATED Pr e

se nt here. Nchang a did not pay for Ban crof t' s business nor

COPPER did it pay for the benefit of its con tract s. Bancr oft rem ain ed aJMINES LTD

' potent ial producer and in fact, as was int ended, re sum ed produc

tion wi th enlarged capaci ty at th e end of th e year. Th e com

pensation paid to Bancroft resembled much more closely, to use

Lor d Sumn er 's words, an outlay of a business, " in order to

carry it on and to earn a profit out of this expense as an expense

" of carrying it on."

For these reasons, which are substantially the same as those

given by Chief Justice Sir John Clayden, and agreed in by his

colleagues in the Supreme Court, their Lordships are of opinion

that the appeal must fail, and they will humbly advise Her

Majesty to this effect.. The appel lant mus t pay the res pon den t's

costs of the appeal.

Solicitors: Coward, Chance & Co.; Linklaters & Paines.

C. C.

p-

c-* BI LL Y MAX SPA BKS APPELLANT;

1963 ANDDjg4

4- TH E QUEE N BESPONDENT.

Feb. 11.

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF BERMUDA.

GrimeEvidenceHearsayStatement of child to mother shortly afterindecent'assaultChild not a witnessIdentificationInadmissible.Not part of the res gestae.

Crime Evidence Bes gestae Identification Hearsay evidence

Inadmissible.CrimeEvidenceConfessionStatements to police officersImproper

inducementsInadmissibleNo other evidence to support conviction.

Bermuda Crime EvidenceHearsayIdentificationBes gestae Admissibility.

* Present: VISCOUNT RADCLIFFE, LORD MO RRIS OF BORTH-Y-GEST

and LORD UPJOHN.

7/29/2019 Sparks v. Queen[1964]

2/29

A . C . AND PEIVT COUNCIL. 9 6 5

At the tr ial of the appellant on a charge of indecently assaulting P. C.

a girl just under the age of four the trial judge held to be inadmis- qf i.sible evidence by the child's mother of a statement made to her by .

the child shortly after she had been assaulted, the child not being a SPARKSwitness at the tr ia l, that " it was 'a coloured boy." The appellant "was a white man aged 27. The judge admitted certain statements B QPEEN-(involving admissions or confessions) made by the appellant topolice officers or made in their hearing. The appellant, who wasfound guilty, appealed against his conviction on the grounds, interalia, (1) that the evidence of the child's statement should have beenheld to be admissible either as evidence of identity or because thewords of the child formed part of the res gestae, and (2) the statements to the police officers were not admissible because they had notbeen voluntarily made. I t was conceded by the prosecution that

unless the statements were admitted there was no evidence on whichthe appellant could have been convicted:

Held, (1) that the mother's evidence of what her child had said

to her would have been hearsay evidence, and the child having

neither given evidence nor said anything in the presence of the

appellant, there was no. basis on which her statement to her mother

could be admitted. Further, even if any basis for its admission

could be found, the evidence of the making of the remark would not

be any evidence of the tru th of the remark. There was no rule which

permitted the giving of hearsay evidence merely because it related

to identity ; nor was it possible to say tha t the words alleged to havebeen spoken by the child were so clearly associated with the assault

in time, place or circumstances that they were a part of the res

gestae (post, pp. 978, 979, 980, 981).

Beg. v. Lillyman [1896] 2 Q.B. 167; 12 T.L.R. 473 and

Teper v. The Queen [1952] A.C. 480; [1952] 2 T.L.R. 162;

[1952] 2 All E.R. 447, P.C. considered.

(2) It was for the prosecution to establish that the statements to

the police were made freely and voluntarily and not under the

influence of improper inducement: Beg. v. Thompson [1893] 2 Q.B.

12; 9 T.L.R. 435. The evidence of the appellant, however (on theacceptance of which the judge based his ruling), showed various

reasons, which pointed collectively to the advantages that would

result from a confession and which were very real inducements, why

he made the statements. Further, in the circumstances of this case

an acknowledgment by the appellant of a caution that he was not

obliged to say anything was no indication that the inducements no

longer continued to operate. The statements were accordingly not

admissible, and, there being no other evidence to support a convic

tion, the appel lant was denied the certa inty of acquit tal. He had

been deprived of the protection, of the law and the appeal would beallowed (post, pp. 981, 982, 983, 985, 987, 989, 990, 99i).

' Ibrahim v. The King [1914].A.C. 599; 30 T.L.R! 383, P.C. '

considered. - ,

Judgment of the Supreme Court of Bermuda reversed.

7/29/2019 Sparks v. Queen[1964]

3/29

966 HOUSE OP LORDS [ 1 9 6 4 ]

P. C. APPEAL (NO. 16 of 1963), by special leave, from a judgment

19g4 of the Supreme Court of Bermuda (Abbott C.J. and a jury)

(February 12, 1963) whereby, the appellant was convicted of

iRKS indecently assaulting a girl under the age of 4 years and was

THE QCEEN. sentenced to two years' imprisonment.

The following. facts are taken from the judgment of the

Judicial Committee: The appellant was arraigned before the

Supreme Court of Bermuda on a charge of indecently assaulting,

contrary to section 324 (1) of the Criminal Code, a small girl who

was just under the age of four. On February 12, 1963, after a

trial lasting some days before Abbott C.J. and a jury of 12, the

jury by a majority found the appellant guilty. He was sentenced

to two years' imprisonment. By special leave granted by an

Order in Council dated May 30 the appellant appealed against

his conviction.

The main questions which arose for determination were

(i) whether evidence was admissible of a statement made by the

small girl to her mother shortly after the assault, the girl not

being a witness at the trial; (ii) whether certain statements

(involving admissions or confessions) made by the appellant to

police officers or made in their hearing were rightly admitted in

evidence; and (iii) whether, if such statements ought not to havebeen admitted, the appeal should be allowed.

On the date of the alleged offence (November 3, 1962) the

small girl (Wendy Sue Bargett, then aged three years and nine

months) was at about 8 p.m. taken by her mother, Mrs. Bargett,

in a motor car to a place called the Bermuda Bowl. The mother

went bowling and left the little girl asleep on the back seat of

the car. The car doors were unlocked. The windows were closed

save that the louvres were left open to let in some air. According

to her mother the girl was old enough and had sufficient knowledge and intelligence to be able to open the doors of the car

had she wished to do so. Visits were paid to the car from time

to time either by the mother or by a friend of the mother in

order to see how the girl was. At about 9 p.m. or 9.15 p.m.,

at which time it was raining quite hard, she was seen to be " very

"fast asleep." At about 9.30 p.m., when the friend went to

the car, one of its rear doors was open and the girl was not there.

It was not then raining. A search in the vicinity was made and

the mother was then told that the girl was missing. The policewere informed at about 9.47 p.m. and arrived at about 10 p.m.

In the course of the search which they made two pairs of panties

which the girl had been wearing were found on the ground under

7/29/2019 Sparks v. Queen[1964]

4/29

A . C . AND PRIVY COUNCIL. 967

or near a car in the car park. That was at about 10.15 p.m. P. C.

At about 10.40 p.m. the police received information over the ig 64

police-car radio as a result of which they went to the house of a

Sergeant Cochrane, where the girl then was. The police took her back to the Bermuda Bowl and restored her to her mother. The THE QOBEN.

mother found some blood on the girl's finger and body. In

reference to what then took place the mother later gave evidence

before the examining magistrate. She gave evidence of what

her girl had said to her. The mother's evidence before the

examining magistrate included the following passage: " I lifted

" up her dress and I found blood on her body. I do not recall

" Wendy Sue saying anything to me at that time. But she did

" say that I should have looked the other way, I do not know" what she meant. Then I asked her who took her out of the

" car. I asked this and she said that she did not know. I then

" asked her what did the person look like, and she said that it

" was a coloured boy. She did not say anything more after that ."

At the trial evidence as to what the girl had said and her

statement tha t " it was a coloured boy " was held to be inadmis

sible. On behalf of the appellant, who was not coloured but

white, it was submitted before the Board that the statement

should have been held to be admissible.The girl was then taken to hospital and was examined by a

doctor who found that she was bleeding from the vagina and had

scratches and a stretch tear of the hymen. The doctor's view

was that nothing larger than a finger had passed through.

The evidence concerning the movements of the appellant (a

staff-sergeant serving in the United States Air Force who was

27 years of age and a married man with three children) was as

follows. He had come off duty at the airport at 4.45 p.m. He

went with some friends to a bar and there had some drinks.With a friend (Sergeant Donovan) he then went to a certain inn

where they had drinks. They met Sergeant Cochrane, who

invited the appellant to his house to celebrate his (Sergeant

Cochrane's) birthday. The appellant went in Sergeant Cochrane's

car to Sergeant Donovan's house and on the way drank some

neat sloe gin from a bottle. At Sergeant Donovan's house the

appellant had another drink. Before going on duty that day

the appellant had left his own motor car at Sergeant Donovan's

house. The appellant then went in his own car from SergeantDonovan's house to Sergeant Cochrane's house. He arrived there

at about 8.45 to 9 p.m. He then seemed to be very drunk. He

did not stay long and he was later seen by Sergeant Cochrane

7/29/2019 Sparks v. Queen[1964]

5/29

9 6 8 HOUSE OP LORDS [1964]

P- C. backing his car away from the house. He was next seen at

1964 *n e Bermuda Bowl. The evidence concerning the time when he

was there seen was divergent. A witness (Mrs. Klemmer) said

_ that she saw the appellant at the Bermuda Bowl between 9 and

THE QOBBN. 9.10 p.m. She said that he was drunk. Another witness

(Eichardson) said that he saw the appellant driving his car from

one of the parking places near to the Bermuda Bowl and said

that in the process the appellant's car touched another car. That

witness put the time at about 9.15 or 9.20 p.m. Another witness

(Simms) said that he saw the appellant at the Bermuda Bowl

some time between 9.50 p.m. and 10.10 p.m. That witness said

that the appellant was obviously very drunk and that he almost

fell down when he came in the door and then turned and wentout again. The appellant then arrived again at Sergeant

Cochrane's house. The party there was still going on though

most of the guests had left. One witness (Neberman) said that

at some time between 10 p.m. and 11 p.m. the appellant arrived

at Sergeant Cochrane's house. The witness said that there was a

girl some 10 or 15 feet behind the appellant and that the girl

seemed to be following the appellant. The witness considered

that the appellant was drunk: his face was flushed, his gait

unsteady and his words slurred. The appellant called out forSergeant Cochrane and went into the house. An airman

(Cameron) came out from the house, picked up the girl and took

her into the house. The girl's dress was dry. The appellant

was wet from head to foot. Neberman and Cameron then took

the girl down the street in the hope of finding someone who

knew the girl. Failing to find anyone who knew her they returned

to the house and communicated with the police who thereafter

came to the house and took the girl away. The appellant told

Neberman that the girl had followed him from some place by achurch. The appellant himself gave evidence at the trial concern

ing his movements during the evening. His recollection of what

happened at Donovan's house was not clear. He remembered

driving his car, after that though he did not know where he had

driven tobut remembered ending up at the Cochrane's house

and speaking to Sergeant Cochrane and Mrs. Cochrane. He did

not remember leaving Cochrane's house but his next recollection

after speaking to Mrs. Cochrane was of his car becoming stuck.

He said: " I don't remember getting out of the car but I do" remember being on the way back to Cochrane's house. While

" on the way back there, I saw a little girl in the road very near

" Cochrane's. house. She was crying and said something about

7/29/2019 Sparks v. Queen[1964]

6/29

A . C . AND PRIVY COUNCIL. 9 6 9

" her mummy. I took her inside Cochrane's house. There were P. C

" people there who came out and helped me get my car out." 954

Cameron also gave evidence. The appellant told him that he

(the appellant) did not know whose the child was but that she ..had followed him up the road from in front of the church. The T H E QOEEN.

appellant then asked those in the house to help him to get his

car out of a ditch. Some of those in the house went in a car

to the appellant's car which was stuck in a ditch. At one stage

in the recovery of the car the assistance of a truck to pull it

was obtained. The appellant reached his home at about

11.55 p.m. The evidence of the appellant 's wife was that he

was pretty drunk, that he was swaying on his feet, that his

speech was not clear and that his clothes were covered with mud

from his knees down. At the trial she stated in her evidence

that she had expected the appellant to be home at about 6 p.m.

or 6.30 p.m. and that she had had a telephone conversation with

Sergeant Cochrane at about 7 p.m., another with Sergeant

Donovan at about 8 p.m., and further telephone conversations

with Sergeant Cochrane or with Cameron at about 9 p.m., then

at about 9.45 p.m., then at about 11 p.m. and again at about

11.45 p.m.

The appellant was due to be on early morning duty at the

airport on Sunday, November 4. He rose at 5 a.m. He drove

his car to Sergeant Donovan's house and was then driven by

Sergeant Donovan in the latter 's car to the airport. He reported

there at 6.45 a.m. He considered, however, that owing to his

drinking on the night before and owing to his lack of sleep he was

not qualified to " work " any air traffic. Following upon an

intimation over the telephone from his wife to the effect that the

police wished to see him he returned home.At 12.30 p.m. two police officers (Det. Const. Oliver and

Det. Const. Leng) went to the appellant's home. They saw him

in the presence of his wife. He was told that it was understood

that he had found a child the evening before and he was asked if

he would make a statement as to the circumstances in which he

had found her. He agreed to do so. It was the evidence of Det.

Const. Leng that the appellant maintained that as he had been

drunk the night before he could not remember what had hap

pened. The evidence of the appellant was likewise to the effectthat he told the police officers of the defects of his recollection as

to the previous evening which resulted from his having been

drunk. Det . Const. Leng said that the appellant's wife helped

7/29/2019 Sparks v. Queen[1964]

7/29

9 7 0 HOUSE OP LORDS [ 1 9 6 4 ]

P. C. him with details as to times. The statement that the appellant

1964 gave was as follows:

" On the evening of Saturday, Nov. 3rd., 1962, between 8.30

c- " and 9.00 p.m. I went to a party at the residence of S/Sgt.

THE QUEEN. " Cochrane on Khyber Pass, Warwick. I had a few drinks, I had

" been drinking earlier and I was pretty high.

" I left the party in my car and set off along Spice Hill Koad.

" After about - | mile I ran into a ditch and spent some time

" trying to get out. I then set off to walk back to the party for

" help. At the church just west of Cochrane's I saw a little girl,

" I think she was standing still, she was crying and saying some-

" thing about her mother. I thought she possibly belonged to

" someone at the party and so I took her to the house. I told

" the people there I had found her near the church then tried to

" arrange for help to get my car out. I remember Clayton

" Cameron asking the number of the police then I left. I did

" not go back in the house again.

" As far as I can figure it, it must have been close to 10 p.m.

" when I found the girl and I just got the impression she was

"lost and frightened."

It was the view of the judge that it was beyond dispute that

it was the appellant's wife who was able to provide the informa

tion regarding the times at which the appellant had been at

various places.

Shortly after giving his statement the appellant retired to bed.

At about 2.30 p.m. the police officers returned to the house.

They said that certain things about the appellant's movements

of the previous night were not clear to them. They did not

proceed to specify what it was that was not clear and' they did

not at that time put any questions to the appellant. Instead

they requested him to accompany them to police headquarters.

The appellant told them that he did not know how he could help

further as the police officers already knew of his condition on the

previous night. He agreed, however, to do as they wished, and

having dressed he drove his car to the police headquarters. There

after he was. questioned for some time and various oral statements

were made by the police officers to him. In the end at some

time between 5 p.m. and 5.20 p.m. he signed a written state

ment. That statement contained admissions. Though his wife

had twice telephoned the police headquarters during the afternoon in order to speak to him she had not been enabled to do so.

After the appellant signed the statement he was charged with the

offence of indecent assault and he made a reply. For a third

7/29/2019 Sparks v. Queen[1964]

8/29

A . C . AND PRIVY COUNCIL.9 7 1

time his wife telephoned. He was then made available at the P. C.

telephone and said something to his wife. After that he made gg

an oral request to the police.SPARKS

v.1963. November 25, 26 and 27. Norman Fox-Andrews Q.C., THE QUEEN.

Anthony Allen and Coles B. Diel for the appellant. The state

ment attributed to the child and sworn to by the motherthat

" it was a coloured boy"should have been admitted in

evidence. It was excluded, so that that statement attributed by

the mother to the child was never known at any stage to the

jury. If it was admissible it was completely vital, since the

appellant is a white man 27 years of age. The second point isthat certain statements made by the appellant to police officers

or in their hearing, one oral and two written, ought not to have

been admitted as evidence against him. They were in the nature

of a confession. The case for the appellant is that those state

ments were not voluntary in the sense in which that word is

used, but were in fact induced by threats or promises: on this

see per Lord Sumner in Ibrahim v. The Kingl and Archbold's

Criminal Pleading, Evidence and Practice, 35th ed., p. 462,

para. 1115. In the court below, in dealing with the questionof the admissibility of the alleged confession statements, there

was a trial within a trial, and the Chief Justice acted on the

assumption and basis that the evidence given by the appellant

and his wife was true. On that assumption, the statements

were, it "is submitted, clearly inadmissible. That error on the

part of the Chief Justice was vital since, as he himself said,

apart from those statements there was no evidence that the

appellant was guilty. In evidence the appellant said that the

confession statement was not true.In his ruling on the trial within a trial the Chief Justice said:

" Any inducement in Detective Constable Leng's suggestion that

" if the accused did not make a statement, he would, in addition,

" be prosecuted for the motoring offences, does not, in my judg-

" ment, relate to the charge on which the accused is now being

" tried, so that, if in fact it was made, it must be ignored." The

Chief Justice was there misdirecting himself, for an inducement

is not to be excluded merely because it goes to a collateral matter.

It is impossible to take the view that the prosecution have heresucceeded on the relevant material in showing that these state

ments were voluntary. The only inference is that the appellant

1 [1914] A.C. 599, 609, 611; 30 T.L.E. 383, P.C.

7/29/2019 Sparks v. Queen[1964]

9/29

97 '2 HOUSE OP LORDS [ 1 9 6 4 ]

P (' was taken to the police station in order that he should be sub-

1964 jected to pressure. He was being told that if he made a

~confession there would

be noprosecution

formotoring offences.

v. It is an extremely important part of the case for the appellant

THE QUEEN, that at a later stage in the hearing the police admitted that their

purpose in taking the appellant to the police station in the after

noon of November 4, 1962, was to " get him to admit the offence."

If the Chief Justice was right in his original ruling that there

were no threats or promises rendering the statements inadmissible

(and it is submitted that he was not), then at this later stage the

Chief Justice ought either to have stopped the case on the ground

that there was at that stage no admissible evidence from which

the jury could infer or find guilt on the part of the appellant or

should have ruled in his discretion that the evidence was of SO'

slender and unsatisfactory a character as to render it unsafe to

allow the case to go to the jury.

Authorities on the making of statements are Reg. v. Baldry,2

Reg. v. Fennell,3 Reg. v. Thompson4 and Reg. v. Smith.5

Reliance is placed particularly on the language in the last-cited

case. See, also, Archbold, para. 1111.

On the second questionthe admissibility of the evidencegiven by the mother before the committing magistrates relating

to the statement made to her by the childthe first submission

is that the child's words ought to be regarded as part of the res

gestae. Secondly, the statement went to the issue of identity

and is admissible for that reason also. Eeliance is placed on

the observations of Lord Goddard C.J. in Reg. v. Wallwork 6 where

he said that the question of identity did not arise at all. In

this case it did arise. If a statement is favourable or unfavourable

to the accused and is made in his presence it would be admissible.

Why should it be any the less admissible if made in his absence?

why should he be worse off merely because he was not there?

Another case on this particular point is Rex v. Christie 7 in which

some of the passages appear to assist my argument while some

do not.

In summary on this point: (1) The question whether such a

statement as that which was made by this child is admissible

2

(1852) 5 Cox 523, 525, 531-532.6

(1958) 42 Cr.App.E. ,153, 158,3 (1881) 7 Q.B.D. 147,' 151, C.C.B. 161, CCA.4

[1893] 2 Q.B. 12, 15, C.C.E. * [19.14] A.C. 545, 548, 550, 553,5

[1959] 2 Q.B. 35, 38; [1959] 2 ' 562; 30 T.L.B. 471, H.L.(B.).W.L.R. 623; [19591 2 All E.B. 193,C.-M.A.C.

7/29/2019 Sparks v. Queen[1964]

10/29


where it goes to the question of identification has plainly been P- C.

judicially considered. (2) The cases cited above show that those 954

judges who have passed on this question are not unanimous in

their views. (3) The reasons deduced in support of the conflicting .views are not very easy to follow. (4) The clarification of the T H E QUEEN.

present state of the law on this important matter is desirable,

and that, indeed, was one of the basic submissions of the

Attorney-General in Christie's case.8

(5) That case was decided

49 years ago, and the obvious practical importance of this point,

whether to the prosecution or the defence in a criminal case

such as this, would certainly justify, if it were possible, the

giving of a clearer explanation of the position than is at present

available. [Rex v. Treacy 9 was referred to.] (6) In the periodin which we live justice requires that such a statement as was

made by this child should be available for the jury's consideration

whichever way it turns, whether in favour of the prosecution

or the defence, and with that submission is coupled the point

that, such a statement havingbeen admitted, no doubt the trial

judge and, indeed, counsel for the Crown, might well tell the

jury that it was for them to judge of the weight and value of

that piece of information.

With regard to the question of res gestae, see Phipson onEvidence, 10th ed., p. 101, para. 216, and Teper v. The Queen.10

Each case must depend on its own facts; but it is submitted

that the making of the statement by the child in the circumstances

of this case was really part of the transaction itselfit was made

by her at the earliest opportunity to the person to whom it could

be expected to be madeher motherand it was part of the

res gestae.

J. G. he Quesne Q.O. and Mervyn Heald for the Crown.

Mr. Fox-Andrews has argued on the basis that justice demandedthat hearsay evidence of this sort should be before the jury.

Hearsay evidence is not admissible except in certain well-defined,

exceptional cases for certain purposes. The evidence of the

mother here falls within none of those cases. There is no room

for argument that hearsay evidence is admissible because it goes

to the issue of identification. If there was such a rule it would

be extremely far-reaching. There is a well-established excep

tion to the rule excluding hearsay evidence which applies

to cases of indecent assault and cases of that kind. Beg.

s [1914] A.C. 545, 547. i [1952] A.C. 480, 486-487.9 (1944) 60 T.L.E. 544; [1944] 2

All E.E. 229, CCA.

7/29/2019 Sparks v. Queen[1964]

11/29

9 7 4 HOUSE OF LORDS [1964]

P. C. v. Lillyman" is the standard authority explaining the basis

1964 of and the extent of this exception. Christie's case12 is

not relevant on the question of the acceptance of this hearsay

evidence. Reg. v. Wallwork 13 is quite indistinguishable from theTHE QUEEN, present case; Lord Goddard C.J. had no intention there of

enunciating the principle for which Mr. Fox-Andrews contended.

There can be no longer any doubt about this point of the exception

to hearsay evidence; in such a case as the present, in which the

child gave no evidence, the exception would not apply and the

mother's evidence was not admissible. Mr. Fox-Andrews said

that if a statement was made in the presence of the accused it

was admissible, and he asked why the accused should be worse

off merely because the statement was made in his absence. Theanswer is that, strictly speaking, a statement made in the presence

of the prisoner is not admissible. The statement is no evidence

of the truth of what is stated, but what is admissible and what is

evidence is the accused's response to the statement made:

Christie's case,14 which does not establish that hearsay evidence

of a statement made by someone in the position of this child is

admissible simply because it goes to the question of identification.

There is no such rule. This was hearsay evidence not within the

exception making hearsay evidence admissible.It was also said for the appellant that the hearsay evidence

ought to be admitted because what the child said to her mother

was part of the res gestaethat the child's statement was really

part of the transaction. There has been some discussion in the

past as to what exactly for this purpose the res or the transaction

is of which the words have to form part. That mat ter is put

beyond doubt by Teper v. The Queen 15; it has to be shown that

the words were connected in " time, place and circumstances "

with the actual fact of assault. See also Christie's case16;applying that here, what was said here cannot be held to be part

of the transaction. That the statement was made to a person to

whom it was expected or natural to be made is quite irrelevant

to the question whether it was part of the res gestae or not. In

this case it is quite impossible to say that this statement was

part of the res gestae.

With regard to the statements made by the appellant to the

police officers, it is clear that a statement made by an accused

11 [1896] 2 Q.B. 167, 169; 12 " [1914] A.C. 545, 563.

T.L.B. 473, C.C.E. 15 [1952] A.C. 480, 488.

12 [1914] A.C. 545. 16 [1914] A.C. 545, 556.

" 42Cr.App.R. 153, 161.

7/29/2019 Sparks v. Queen[1964]

12/29


person does not become inadmissible merely because a threat has P- C.

been made or a promise held out to him, but only if the threat ^54

or promise induced him to make the statement. Whether he wasSPA R ES

so induced to make the statement is a question of fact, but since it is one which goes to the admissibility of the evidence it has at THE QUEEN.

that stage to be determined by the judge on the evidence before

him. The judge here held that if such threat or promise had

been made it had not induced the appellant to make any of these

sta tements. There was evidence on which he could properly

make that finding and there should not be any interference now.

It follows from that finding that the accused's statements were

admissible. What weight the jury ought to give to the evidence

was a matter for them.The only account of an inducement which the appellant gave

in his evidence of why he made the statements was an allegation

that he made his confession as a result of a promise to him to

avoid embarrassment to his wife. An inducement must be a

promise of some advantage or a threat of some disadvantage

in connection with the proceedings: Reg. v. Joyce.17

That

is to be found in all the leading textbooks: Phipson on

Evidence, 10th ed., p. 331, paras. 798, 799; Taylor on Evidence,

12th ed., Vol. 1, p. 554, paras. 879, 880; Halsbury's Laws ofEngland, 3rd ed., Vol. 10, p. 474. Of the cases the earliest, Rex

v. Warner, is one which appears in Eussell on Crime, 8th ed.,

Vol. 2, p. 2015. See, also, Rex v. Lloyd18

and Rex v. Green19

the latter does not carry the matter very much further. Reg. v.

Hearn20

was a case where two charges were really all one trans

action and the inducement in respect of one operated on the

other. The inducement must be held out by some person in a

position to decide whether the charge either should or should not

be prosecuted: Ibrahim v. The King21

; Reg. v. Moore.22

Thatindicates that it must be a threat or promise relating to the

proceedings.

If there is an inducement which relates to the charge and is

held out by a person in authority then the law regards a sub

sequent confession as one on which it is unsafe to rely and it

must not be admitted. If, on the other hand, there is an induce

ment not relating to the charge or not given by a person in

authority, then it may or may not be safe to rely on a subsequent

1? [1958] 1 W.L.E. 140; [1957] 3 " (1841) C. & Marsh. 109.

All E .E. 623, C.C.C. " [1914] A.C. 599, 609.

" (1834) 6 C. & P. 393. 22 (1852) 2 Den.Crown Cas. 522," (1834) 6 C. & P. 655. 527.

7/29/2019 Sparks v. Queen[1964]

13/29

S"

6HOUSE OP LORDS [1964]

P- C. statement; that is a matter for the jury. The ruling of the Chief

1964 Justice on admissibility was right. H e clearly applied the test

in Beg. v. Doherty23 which he cited. But, on the assumption

v that he was wrong in admitting the statements, either because

THE QUEEN, he took a wrong view of the law or because he was wrong in

applying the law to the evidence, there was no serious miscarriage

of justice here such as to justify quashing the conviction: Teper

v. The Queen.2i

Here the judge and the majority of thejury

have found that these are voluntary statements, and it cannot

therefore be said that any miscarriage of justice has occurred by

their being admitted in evidence.

Fox-Andrews Q.G. in reply referred to Beg. v. Gibson.25

Reliance is placed particularly on the language of Lord GoddardC.J. in Beg. v. Wallwork.

26 There is no warrant for the suggested

limitation relating to the charge: Archbold, p. 459, para. 1109.

[Reference was also made to Ibrahim v. The King27

and Reg. v.

Smith.]

1963. December 4. VISCOUNT RADCLIFFE. Their Lordships

will humbly advise Her Majesty that the appeal should be

allowed, the conviction set aside and the sentence quashed. They

will give their reasons at a later date.

1964. February 11. The reasons for their Lordships' report

were delivered by LORD MORRIS OF BORTH-Y-GEST, who stated

the facts set out above and continued: At the trial the prosecution

sought to give evidence in regard to the written statement and in

regard to the oral statements made by the appellant at police

headquarters. The defence submitted tha,t they were not admis

sible because they had hot been voluntarily made. I t became

necessary, therefore, for the prosecution to satisfy the judge thatthe statements were admissible. It is manifest that careful

inquiry had to be made in order to determine whether the state

ments were voluntary. In his own home at the end of the

morning the appellant had told the police of his excessive drinking

during the previous evening and. of the inadequacies of his recol

lection. He had made a statement which suggested his complete

innocence. Yet at police headquarters at the end of an afternoon

of questioning and talk he signed a written statement which

23 (1874) .13 Cox 23. 26 42 Cr.App.E. 153.2" [1952] A.C. 480, 491. " [1914] A.C. 599, 611.25 (1887) 18 Q.B.D. 537, 542; 3 28 [1959] 2 Q.B. 35.

T.L.E. 442, C.C.E.

7/29/2019 Sparks v. Queen[1964]

14/29

A . O . AND PRIVY COUNCIL. 9 7 7

contained not only positive admissions of guilt but also an account ** -'

of events which was seemingly based upon detailed recollection. i%4

What, then, had been happening during the afternoon? Was ~

there anything to account for so complete a change? Had the v.

appellant in the morning been prevaricating? Had he by the end THB QnEBN-

of the afternoon quite freely decided that he would confess to

things that he had well known all along that he had done? Why

had the appellant been asked to go to the police headquarters

when at his own home he had already made a statement? Was

anything said to the appellant during an afternoon of questioning

to persuade him to make some new statement? Were any induce

ments held out to the appellant? If so, did they lead him to

make statements which were not voluntary and which were not

based upon his own knowledge? These were among the many

questions which clearly required to be investigated. The judge

adopted the correct and recognised procedure. In the absence of

the jury he heard the evidence that either side wished to call.

The police officers gave evidence. The appellant gave evidence

and so did the appellant's wife. It then became the duty and

the responsibility of the judge himself to come to a conclusion.

He ruled that the evidence was admissible. It is the correctness

of that ruling that has been challenged.

There was no doubt as to the vital importance of the ruling,

for it was recognised by the prosecution that unless the state-

. ments were admitted there was no evidence upon which the

appellant could have been convicted. I t would seem, therefore,

that if the judge had rejected the evidence the trial would then

have ended and the appellant would have been acquitted and

discharged.

On the basis of his ruling that the evidence should be admittedthe judge, after the return of the jury, quite properly allowed all

the evidence to be given as to the making of the statements. Pull

cross-examination was permitted so that the jury, after hearing

all the evidence that prosecution or defence might call, could be

invited to consider what weight should be given to the statements

or to consider whether any weight at all should be given to them

or whether they should not be disregarded. (See Rex v. Murray.1)

In the course of his evidence at that stage one of the police officers

acknowledged when being cross-examined that their purpose in

taking the appellant to police headquarters had been " to get him

i [1951] 1 K. B. 391; 66 T. L. B. (Pt. 2) 1007; [1950] 2 All E. E. 925, C C A .

A.C. 1964. 63

7/29/2019 Sparks v. Queen[1964]

15/29

9 7 8 HOUSE OP LORDS [ 1 9 6 4 ]

P. C. " to admit " the offence: another police officer denied that that

igg had been the purpose.

~ : In order to examine the submission that the judge should not

. have admitted the statements their Lordships must refer to someTHE QUEEN. 0f ^he evidence which was given in regard to them on the voir

dire in the absence of the jury. Before doing so their Lordships

will revert to the first main question which arises in this appeal.

The defence submitted' at the trial that the mother should be

permitted to recount what the girl had said to her. The alleged

utterance was made very shortly after the girl was restored to

her mother. That was probably within 1 | hours of the time when

the girl left the motor car. The words, if spoken, were probably

spoken at the earliest opportunity for the making of a complaint

to the mother, who was the person to whom it would be natural

to voice a complaint. There was no suggestion that the girl

made a complaint when in the company of anyone at Sergeant

Cochrane's house. The mother would clearly be giving hearsay

evidence if she were permitted to state what her girl had said to

her. It becomes necessary, therefore, to examine the contentions

which have been advanced in support of the admissibility of the

evidence. I t was said that '' it was manifestly unjust for the jury

" t o be left throughout the whole trial with the impression that" the child could not give any clue to the identity of her

" assailant." The cause of justice is, however, best served by

adherence to rules which have long been recognised and settled.

If the girl had' made a remark to her mother (not in the presence

of the appellant) to the effect that it was the appellant who had

assaulted her and if the girl was not to be a witness at the trial,

evidence as to what she had said would be the merest hearsay.

In such circumstances it would be the defence who would wish to

challenge a contention, if advanced, that it would be " manifestly" unjust " for the jury not to know that the girl had given a clue

to the identity of her assailant. If it is said that hearsay evidence

should freely be admitted and that there should be concentration

in any particular case upon deciding as to its value or weight it is

sufficient to say that our law has not been evolved upon such lines

but is firmly based upon the view that it is wiser and better that

hearsay should be excluded save in certain well defined and rather

exceptional circumstances.

It was urged on behalf of the appellant that the desiredevidence could have been given because the words of the girl (if

uttered) formed part of the res gestae. Though this contention

was abandoned at the trial it was readopted in the argument

7/29/2019 Sparks v. Queen[1964]

16/29


before their Lordships. Their Lordships cannot accept it. The P- Q-

issues which were raised at the criminal trial were whether the jgg^

prosecution could prove that the girl had been indecently assaulted

and could prove that she had been assaulted by the accused. A _

statement made some time after the assault could not be said to T H B QUEEN.

be any part of the assault or to form any part of the narrative in

respect of the assault.

If the girl had been old enough to give evidence and if she had

given evidence, and if the mother had given evidence as to a

complaint made to her by the girl shortly after the alleged assault,

the latter evidence would not be evidence which proved the truth

of anything tha t the girl had said. If admitted it would be

received on the basis that it tended to show consistency in her

conduct and consistency with the evidence given by her in court:

it would relate to her credibility. In Reg. v. Lillyman 2 Hawkins

J. in giving the judgment of the court said in reference to

evidence of that nature: " It clearly is not admissible as evidence

" of the facts complained of: those facts must be established, if

" at all, upon oath by the prosecutrix or other credible witness,

" and, strictly speaking, evidence of them ought to be given before

" evidence of the complaint is admitted. The complaint can only

" be used as evidence of the consistency of the conduct of the

" prosecutrix with the story told by her in the witness-box, and

'' as being inconsistent with her consent to that of which she

" complains." In his judgment Hawkins J. stressed tha t it is

the duty of a judge to impress upon the jury in every case where

evidence of a recent complaint is given that they are not entitled

to make use of the complaint as any evidence whatever of the

facts in reference to which it was made. Similarly, if it be sup

posed that the girl had in the presence and hearing of the accused

made some remark which accused him, and if evidence of the

making of the remark had been admitted, that again would not

be on the basis that the remark proved the truth of what had

been said but on the basis that the subsequent remarks or

behaviour of the accused might have some evidential value. (See

she say anything in the presence of the appellant. Their Lord-

Rex v. Christie.3) In fact the girl neither gave evidence nor did

ships can see no basis upon which evidence concerning a remark

made by her to her mother could be admitted.

Even if any basis for its admission could be found the evidence

of the making of the remark would not be any evidence of the

2 [1896] 2 Q.B. 167, 170; 12 => [1 914] A . C . 545; 30 T.L.E. 471,

T.L. B. 473. H.L.(E .).

7/29/2019 Sparks v. Queen[1964]

17/29

9 8 0HOUSE OP LORDS [1964]

p- C. truth of the remark. Evidence of the making of the remark could

1964 not in any event possess a higher probative value than would

gp attach to evidence of the making of a complaint in a case whereo. the complainant gives evidence or to evidence of an accusation

THE QUEEN.

made to or in the presence of an accused. Nor can the principleof the matter vary according as to whether a remark is helpful toor hurtful to an accused person.

In regard to the submission that the words alleged to havebeen spoken by the girl to her mother formed part of the res

gestae it is apposite to refer to what was said by Lord Normand

in delivering the reasons of the Board in Teper v. The Queen.1

Lord Normand said: " The rule against the admission of hearsay" evidence is fundamental. It is not the best evidence and it is

" not delivered on oath. The truthfulness and accuracy of the

person whose words are spoken to by another witness cannot be

" tested by cross-examination, and the light which his demeanour

" would throw on his testimony is lost. Nevertheless, the rule

" admits of certain carefully safeguarded and limited exceptions,

" one of which is that words may be proved when they form part

" of the res gestae. The rules controlling this exception are

" common to the jurisprudence of British Guiana, England and" Scotland. I t appears to rest ultimately on two propositions,

'' that human utterance is both a fact and a means of communica-

" tion, and that human action may be so interwoven with words

" that the significance of the action cannot be understood without

" the correlative words, and the dissociation of the words from

" the action would impede the discovery of truth. Bu t the

" judicial applications of these two propositions, which do not

" always combine harmoniously, have never been precisely

" formulated in a general principle. Their Lordships will not" attempt to arrive at a general formula, nor is it necessary to

" review all of the considerable number of cases cited in the

" argument. This, at least, may be said, that it is essential that

" the words sought to be proved by hearsay should be, if not

" absolutely contemporaneous with the action or event, at least

" so clearly associated with it, in time, place and circumstances,

" that they are part of the thing being done, and so an item or

" part of real evidence and not merely a reported statement:

" The Queen v. Be dingfield*; O'Hara v. Central S.M.T. Co.6

"

4[1952] A.C. 480, 486; [1952] 2

5(1879) 14 Cox C.C. 341.

T.L.R. 162; [1952] 2 All E.K. 447, 1941 S.C. 363.

P.O.

7/29/2019 Sparks v. Queen[1964]

18/29


Their Lordships do not think that it is possible to say that the p- c-

words alleged to have been spoken by the girl were so clearly 1964

associated with the assault upon her. in time, place or circum- "*IT* Aim s

stances, that they were a part of the assault. .

Their Lordships must also reject a further submission which THB QDEEN.

was made that evidence of the speaking of the words could be

given as evidence which identified the assailant. As was said by

Lord Normand in Teper v. The Queen 7 : " The special danger of

" allowing hearsay evidence for the purpose of identification

" requires that it shall only be allowed if it satisfies the strictest

" test of close association with the event in time, place and

" circumstances. ' Identification is an act of the mind, and the

" ' primary evidence of what was passing in the mind of a man

" ' is his own testimony, where it can be obtained. I t would be

" ' very dangerous to allow evidence to be given of a man' s word's

".' and actions, in order to show by, this extrinsic evidence that

" ' he identified the prisoner, if he was capable of being called as

" ' a witness and was not called to prove by direct evidence that

" ' h e had thus identified h i m ' : Christie's case, per Lord

"Moul ton .8 "

Their Lordships were referred to certain observations at

page 161 in Beg. v. Wallwork,1' but do not consider that those

observations are to be interpreted in any sense contrary to what

was said by Lord Normand in the passage above cited or to what

was said in Reg. v. Lillyman.10 There is no rule which permits

the giving of hearsay evidence merely because it relates to identity.

Their Lordships pass to a consideration of the question whether

certain statements made by the appellant to the police officers or

made in their hearing should have been admitted in evidence.

The contrast between the statement made by the appellant in his

own house in the morning (as to which no question arises) and that

made at police headquarters in the afternoon has already been

noted. Was the latter made freely and voluntarily? It was for

the prosecution to establish tha t it was. As Lord Sumner said in

his speech in Ibrahim v. The Kingl l

: " I t has long been estab-

" lished as a positive rule of English criminal law, that no state-

" ment by an accused is admissible in evidence against him

" unless it is shown by the prosecution to have been a voluntary

" statement, in the sense that it has not been obtained from him

" either by fear of prejudice or hope of advantage exercised or

' [1952] A.C. 480, 488.l [1896] 2 Q.B. 167, 170.

s [1914] A.C. 545, 558. " [1914] A.C. 599, 609.9

(1958) 42 Cr.App.E. 153, C C A . .

7/29/2019 Sparks v. Queen[1964]

19/29

9 8 2 HOUSE OF LORDS [1964]

P- C. " held out by a person in authority." I t became the obligation

1964 of the judge to consider whether the appellant had made voluntary

~ statements. Unless it was shown to the satisfaction of. the judge

SPARKS_ that the statements were voluntary (in the sense referred to byTHE QUBBN. Lord Sumner) he could not admit them. The appellant was

entitled to have the determination of the judge as to their

admissibility.

The procedure to be followed when a question arises as to

whether to admit a statement is well settled. (See Beg. v.

Francis and Murphy.12

) If objection is made to admissibility it

is for the judge to hear evidence in the absence of the jury and

then to rule whether an alleged confession should or should not

be admitted. He ought not to admit it if on the view which heforms of the circumstances of the making of a confession he does

not consider that it was a voluntary one.

As has already been stated, when the point was reached at the

trial when the question of the admissibility of certain statements

arose, the judge proceeded to hear evidence in regard to the

circumstances of their origin. He heard the evidence of three

police officers who had been at police headquarters. The appel

lant then gave evidence and after him the appellant's wife.

There was a sharp conflict as to many important matters betweenthe testimony given by the three police officers and that given by

the appellant. I t became the responsibility of the judge to reach

a conclusion as to what evidence he accepted and to base his

ruling upon his conclusion. In fact what the judge did was to

assume that the appellant's version of his interview with the

police on the afternoon of Sunday, November 4, was the true

one and to base his rulings on that assumption. In acting on

the assumption that the appellant's evidence was true he stated

that he was in no way impugning the integrity of the police. Ingiving his ruling he said: " I should emphasise, as I endeavoured

" to do at the beginning of this ruling, that I have dealt with this

" matter on the basis of the accused's own story, supplemented

" a s it is in some respects by that of his wife. I must also

" emphasise that my dealing with this important question in this

" way does not mean that I accept the accused's story in prefer-

" ence to that told by the prosecution witnesses. For me to do

" that would be to usurp the functions of the jury. I merely add

'' that to deal with this matter in this way seems to be the method" most fair to the accused."

" (1959) 43 Cr.App.E. 174, C C A .

7/29/2019 Sparks v. Queen[1964]

20/29

A . C. AND PRIVY COUNCIL. 9 8 3

With every respect the judge would not be usurping the & c-

functions of the jury. He was deciding in the absence of the jury 1954

whether certain evidence was admissible evidence for the jury to ~

hear. I t was for him to reach such conclusions of fact as were r .needed as the basis of his decision as to the admissibility of the T H B QPBBK.

statements made by the appellant. If they were inadmissible

then the jury ought not to have heard them at all. If they were

held by the judge to be admissible it was still open to the prosecu

tion and the defence to allow the jury to hear the testimony as to

the circumstances under which they came into being so that the

jury, forming their own opinion as to the testimony, could decide

what weight to give to the statements or could decide not to give

any weight at all to them for the reason that they (the jury) werenot satisfied that they were voluntary statements. An accused

person is, however, entitled in the first place to have evidence

excluded if on the view of the facts which is accepted by the judge

at the trial it is not shown that the evidence is legally admissible.

Thus in Reg. v. Francis & Murphy13

it was held that where

objection is taken to the admissibility of an alleged confession it

is essential that the judge should hear evidence in the absence of

the jury and give a ruling whether the confession should be

admitted or not. In that case a recorder had said tha t he wouldnot rule on the issue of admissibility until all the evidence relating

to the alleged confessions had been put before the jury. In giving

judgment in the Court of Criminal Appeal Lord Parker C.J.

said " : " I t is quite clear tha t a prisoner is entitled both to a

" ruling on admissibility from the judge and also to hear the

" verdict of the jury on the weight and value of the confession."

The court said that there should be no departure from what had

always been the settled practice.

When at the preliminary stage evidence is heard by a judge

in the absence of the jury the prosecutor must show affirmatively

to the satisfaction of the judge that a proffered statement was

not made under the influence of an improper inducement. (See

Reg. v. Thompson " : the authority of that decision was recog

nised by their Lordships' Board in Kuruma v. The Queen.")

Having heard evidence on the voir dire the judge had to rule

in regard to four alleged statements made by the appellant. He

excluded a short oral observation alleged to have been made by

is 43Cr.App.R . 174. " ' 18 [1955] A.C. 197, 205; [1955] 2" Ibid . 176. W. L. R. 223; [1955] 1 All B.R . 236,is [1893] 2 Q.B. 12; 9 T.L .R. 435. P.C.

7/29/2019 Sparks v. Queen[1964]

21/29


P- C. the appellant to the police. He admitted (a) a written sta tement

1964 signed by the appellant and recorded between 5 and 5.20 p.m. ,

(b) certain words spoken thereafter over the telephone by theSPARKS

.. appellant to his wife, (c) certain words of request addressedTHB QUBBN. thereafter by the appellant to the police.

As the judge decided to base his ruling upon an acceptance of

the evidence given by the appellant it will be sufficient to record

the substance of it. Although there was a sharp contrast between

what the appellant said and what some or all of the police officers

said, the ruling which was given was based upon and must now

be tested upon an acceptance of the appellant's evidence. The

general effect of it may be summarised. The appellant was

questioned by the police officers. They told him that they hadwitnesses who could prove that he had been at the Bermuda Bowl

the previous evening. The appellant had said that because of his

drunken condition he had not remembered where he had been for

most of the time the previous evening, but he said that if wit

nesses saw him at the Bermuda Bowl then he must have been

there. One of the police officers asked him whether he would' not

make a statement. His reply was " A statement about what?

" I can' t remember anything." Then he was told that a state

ment was wanted from him to avoid embarrassment to his familyand his friends: and that the further the investigations went the

more publicity there would be and more people would know

about it. Then one of the police officers said to him " We could

" get you for drunken driving, hit and run, leaving the scene of

" an accident and molesting the child. All we want is a state-

" ment about the child. We have spoken to this girl, she is no

" dumb-bell, she knows who did this to her." That was a clear

suggestion that the girl either had in some way identified the

appellant or that the police knew that she could. The appellantthen made a request. Saying that his own son aged four would

recognise anyone who had harmed him he asked that the little

girl should see him. He was told that tha t " would be too hard

" on her." The appellant did not know what was the offence

that had been committed against the girl. He assumed that it

was rape and when he protested against being accused he was told

that the offence was not as serious as that . Then one of the police

officers, in the presence of the others, " reconstructed " the crime

to him, saying " You were at Bermuda Bowl and saw a little" girlpossibly she was relieving herself and you took her in your

" car and drove up Spice Hill Eoad, parked and indecently

" assaulted the child, couldn't get your ear started, took the girl

7/29/2019 Sparks v. Queen[1964]

22/29


"wi th you to the pa rt y. " The appellant's reaction was that if P- C.

that was what had' happened it would seem strange to take the 19^

girl to a place where 25 people would know him. He was asked ~ ~

to confess. He said that he did not remember where he had been: e .he asked them for proof and accepted what they told him. r^BB QOBBN.

Eventually he signed a statement at one stage saying " If you

" say I did it I guess I did i t ." At another stage during the

questioning one of the police officers had said: " Listen Sparks,

V we can prove this and will prove i t ." After a caution the

written statement was made. At the end of it one of the police

officers suggested that the appellant should say something by way

of .apology to the girl's parents: the words " I 'm very sorry and

" ashamed " came as a result. The evidence of the appellant

showed that there were various reasons why he made the state

ment: (i) because one of the police officers told him tha t if he

made a statement there was a possibility that he would not be

prosecuted in the civil courts but in the military courts;

(ii) because one of the police officers told him that it would be

the worse for him if he did not make a statement for then he

would' be prosecuted in addition for the motoring offences; (iii) in

order to avoid publicity; (iv) in order to prevent embarrassment

to his family and friends, for one of the police officers in sug

gesting that he should confess had asked him to " think of the

" embarrassment " to his wife and others which would, result

from every step that the' police would have to take; (v) in order

to enable his wife to leave the Island, for one of the police officers

had told him that if there was an investigation and trial his wife

would have to remain. The reason he had signed the confession,

although in his evidence he said that he was quite sure that he

had not assaulted the girl, was, as he stated it, " because I got

" to the point where I believed them " and because " I accepted

'' what they told me as proof.''

The actual making of the statement, after the appellant had

said that he would make one, was according to the appellant the

result of a process of assisted composition. In respect of it the

appellant said: " It is not in my words and it is not a true state-

" ment. I first began by asking ' Where shall I start? '. I was

" told ' Start at the Bowling Alley.' I said ' I saw the little girl

" ' and gave her a ride.' I think Oliver said ' How did she get

" ' in the car? ' I said ' Hell , I don 't know, maybe I just opened

" ' the door and she got in.' Then I carried on with the state-

" ment saying ' I drove up Spice Hill Eoad, parked the car and

" ' molested her .' Leng asked ' What do you mean, molested

7/29/2019 Sparks v. Queen[1964]

23/29

986 HOUSE OF LORDS [1964]

P- C. " ' her'?' I said ' Hell, I don't know what am I supposed to

1004 " ' have done to her? ' Leng said ' You put your finger in her '

" and I said ' O.K. damn it, I put my finger in her. ' Leng saidSPARKS -_

0i " ' F r o n t or back?' I said ' Hell, I don' t know.' I don' t believeTHE QUBBN. " J saj(j j t0 0k h0i, j 0f her a n (j pU(; m y finger between her legs.'

" I consider the statement which I signed as correct to be a" complete fabrication. I believe, I now say, that I did say" ' I thought that by leaving her there she'd get home.' Then

Oliver asked ' Do you want to say any more ' and I said ' I amvery sorry and ashamed.' "

The statement was in the following form:

" Billy Max Sparks, South Shore, Warwick Parish, W/A Staff

" Sergeant U.S.A.F. No. 28777195; 27 years states :

'' I have been told that I am not obliged to say anything unless

" I wish to do so, but whatever I say will be taken down in

"writing and may be given in evidence.

" (Signed) Billy M. Sparks.

" O n Saturday the third of November, 1962, while drunk, I

" was at the Bermuda Bowl parking lot and did give a little girl

" a ride in my car. I remember her walking to me in the parking

" lot and I believe I just opened the car door and she climbed in," I don't know.

" I remember driving along Spice Hill Eoad, and I either

" parked or ran off the road, I don't know which. I took hold of

" her and put my finger between her legs. I tried to get the car

" started, I tried to push it but it wouldn't star t. I don' t know

" how I got to the party. I guess I must have walked. The girl

" was with me when I got to the party. I thought that by leaving

" her there she'd get home. I 'm very sorry and ashamed.

"' (Signed) Billy M. Sparks." (Witness) M. Leng."

" The above statement was recorded by me at Police H.Q.,

" Prospect, between 5 p.m. and 5.20 p.m. at the dictation of the

" person making it. I read it over to him and asked him if he

" wished to make any corrections. He said it was correct and

" signed it.

" (Signed) T. A. Oliver, D/C."

While the questioning of the appellant was proceeding his wifehad telephoned police headquarters. She telephoned again later

and the appellant was then allowed to speak to her. He said to

her " Honey they say I did it, I guess I did i t ." Being then

7/29/2019 Sparks v. Queen[1964]

24/29

A . C . AND PRIVY COUNCIL. y 8 7

asked by his wife whether the police had any proof he said " All P- C.

" the proof in the world." In his evidence he said that he used 1964those words because " I considered the police had all that proof."

SP ATLKA

The prosecution desired and were allowed to give evidence to the effect that the appellant said to his wife " Honey I did it." THE QUEEN.

After the appellant had been charged with the oSence of

indecent assault (as he was within a few minutes of signing the

written statement at police headquarters) he made the request

that he should be detained so as not to have to face his family

and friends. The prosecution were allowed to give evidence of

this request.

Their Lordships consider that an acceptance of the appellant'sevidence must lead to the view that he signed the written state

ment and spoke the words above referred to because he was

persuaded by the police (who must in the present case be regarded

as persons in authority) that it could be proved that it was he who

had assaulted the girl even though he himself had no knowledge

or recollection of having done so, and because he was persuaded

that in such state of affairs it would be better for him to sign a

confession. On an acceptance of the appellant's evidence there

were various inducements which were held out to him. These

were all rather linked together. The significance of them was

that they pointed collectively to the advantages that would result

from a confession. The suggestion was that whether he confessed

or not he would be convicted but that if he confessed there would

in many ways be less unpleasant consequences. The judge con

sidered that the holding out of a possibility that after a confession

the matter would be dealt with in the military courts rather than

in the civil courts could not be held to be an inducement in view

of an answer made by the appellant that he considered that the

military courts would have been more severe. Bu t that left out

of account the circumstances that if he confessed and if the

military courts dealt with the matter that would be a course that

he would prefer for there would then be an avoidance of publicity,

there would be less embarrassment for family and friends, and

there would be freedom for his wife to leave the Island. Their

Lordships consider that these were very real inducements.

The judge considered that any inducement flowing from the

suggestion that if the appellant did not make a confession in

regard to the assault charge he would not only be prosecuted for

the assault but also for the motoring offences was not an induce

ment connected with the assault charge. Their Lordships cannot

accept this reasoning. The inducements were held out by the

7/29/2019 Sparks v. Queen[1964]

25/29

9 8 8HOUSE OP LORDS [1964]

P- C. police in reference to the assault charge and in reference to the

1964w a

y *n w n

i h ^he proceedings on the assault charge would be

conducted. In any event, the motoring episodes were said by theSPARKS .

_ police to form a part of the events of the previous evening and it

THE QUBBN. Was the suggestion of the police that the appellant's participation

in those events included at one time the offence of the assault

and at another time certain motoring offences. (Compare Reg.

v. Hearn.17)

Though the judge considered that some inducements had been

held out he considered that they were not calculated or likely

to make the appellant's confession an untrue one. What has to

be considered, however, is whether there were inducements orother circumstances which showed that the statement was not a

voluntary one, and in any event if a ruling was being given " on

" a basis of the accused's own story " it was of the essence of

his story that he did not think that he had assaulted the girl

and only made a statement because the police persuaded him that

he had assaulted her and because they led him to believe that it

would be better for him if he did make a statement. In his speech

in Ibrahim v. The King18

Lord Sumner cited Reg. v. Baldry, 9

and said: " I t is not that the law presumes such statements" t o be untrue, but from the danger of receiving such evidence

" judges have thought it better to reject it for the administration

" of justice." Lord Sumner had pointed out that the rule which

excludes evidence of statements made by a prisoner when they

are induced by hope held out, or fear inspired, by a person in

authority, is a rule of policy. That it is a rule admits, however,

of no doubt. The judge further considered that such inducements

as he thought had been held out did not continue to operate at

the time of the making of the sta tement : his reason for this

conclusion was that the appellant admitted that he had been

properly cautioned. It is, of course, clear that if an inducement

is held out which does not in fact induce, the admissibility of a

statement is not affected by the circumstance that words of

inducement have been uttered. There may be many facts or

circumstances which tend to show that the effect of some induce

ment has been entirely dissipated and removed (see Reg v.

Smith).20

"(1841) C. & Marsh. 109.2 [1959] 2 Q.B. 35; [1959] 2

[1914] A.C. 599, 611. W.L.B. 623; [1959] 2 All E.E. 193,19

(1852) 2 Den.Cr.C.430. C.-M.A.C.

7/29/2019 Sparks v. Queen[1964]

26/29


Their Lordships cannot, however, agree that in the circum- P- C.

stances of the present case an acknowledgment (in the recognised 1964wording of a caution) by the appellant that he was not obliged

SPARKSto say anything unless he wished to do so was any indication vthat inducements no longer continued to operate. In fact, the THB QUEEN.

caution marked the moment when the persuasions, the promises

and the inducements became effective. Though the appellant

understood that he could, if he wished, remain silent he was (on

his evidence) made to believe that for the price of his confession

he could purchase advantage. When he was cautioned the

inducements were not withdrawn. Bather had the time for

decision arrived as to whether he would avail himself of the

benefits promised. The prospects before him as they were madeto appear to him were alternative: on one basis while he himself

would suffer punishment the troubles of his family and his friends

would be diminished: on another basis not only would he himself

suffer punishment but he would face all possible charges and

his family and friends would be confronted with the utmost

embarrassment.

For the reasons which they have set out their Lordships

conclude that the written statement signed by the appellant and

recorded between 5 and 5.20 p.m. was not shown to have beena voluntary statement and accordingly was not admissible. The

considerations which have been discussed in reference to it are

applicable also in respect of the telephone conversation between

the appellant and his wife and in respect of the request made

by the appellant to the police.

Their Lordships pass finally to consider whether the result of

these conclusions is that the appeal should be allowed. I t was

submitted by the respondent that as the jury heard evidence in

full as to all the circumstances of the making of the statementsand accordingly heard all the witnesses examined and cross-

examined and as the judge gave the jury a careful direction (citing

the words of Lord Sumner in Ibrahim v. The King21

) to the

effect that unless they were satisfied that a statement or confession

was voluntary they must reject it and disregard it and give it no

weight whatsoever, and as the judge told the jury that the state

ments or confessions were " the only evidence " against the

appellant and as the jury (albeit by a majority) found the appel

lant guilty it must be considered accordingly that the majorityof the jury held that the statements (which in this connection

21 [1914] A.C. 599.

7/29/2019 Sparks v. Queen[1964]

27/29


P- C>- presumably means all of them) were voluntary statements. The

1964 respondent submitted that on this view it should be held that

there was no miscarriage of justice and that the principles which

_ guide their Lordships Board in criminal cases should lead to theTHE QDBBN. conclusion tha t the appeal should be dismissed. Their Lordships

cannot accept this reasoning. For the reasons already given their

Lordships reject the submission that it should be held that there

was no prejudicial result or miscarriage of justice for the reason

that the jury were invited to disregard the challenged statements

unless they considered that they were voluntary. The appellant

was entitled in the first place to have the ruling of the judge

based upon his assessment of the evidence. In such a situation

a judge cannot sidestep his function and cause decision to devolvesolely on the jury. The judge did not do that: what he did was

to assume acceptance of the appellant's evidence. On that

assumption the statements were not shown to have been voluntary

ones.

It was common ground at the trial, and was frankly so

conceded by the prosecution, that if the disputed statements were

not admissible there was no evidence upon which a conviction

could be sought. Indeed, the judge said in his summing-up that

if the confessions had not existed the appellant " would never" have appeared in court anywhere." I t must follow that if the

statements had not been admitted the jury would have had to

have been directed to return a verdict of not guilty. If, therefore,

the statements ought not to have been admitted the result was

that the appellant was denied the certainty of acquittal. Though

their Lordships are not a Court of Criminal Appeal and do not

exercise all the revising functions of such a court, the circum

stances of the present case are such that the admission of the

statements had the result of depriving the accused of the protection of the law. In Ibrahim's case,22 in speaking of the practice

of their Lordships' Board in criminal cases, Lord Sumner said:

" There must be something which, in the particular case, deprives

" the accused of the substance of fair trial and ihe protection

" of the law, or which, in general, tends to divert the due and

" orderly administration of the law into a new course, which may

" be drawn into an evil precedent in future." On the view which

their Lordships take in the present case " the protection of the

" law " would have produced the result that the exclusion ofthe appellant's statements now in question must have been

" [1914] A.C. 599, 615.

7/29/2019 Sparks v. Queen[1964]

28/29


followed by a ruling that there was no evidence against him and P- C.

by a direction to acquit. In Ibrahim's case22 a private soldier jg^

who was arrested immediately after a murder had been com-SFABESmitted was asked by an officer some 10 to 15 minutes later, Ci

" W h y have you done such a senseless a c t ? " : the private THE QOEHN.

soldier made a reply which contained an admission. Two

arguments against the admissibility of the reply were presented.

It was said that the reply was not a voluntary statement but

was obtained by pressure of authority and fear of consequences.

That point failed. Secondly, it was said that the reply was that

of a man in custody in answer to a question put by a person

having authority over him as commanding officer and having

custody of him through the subordinates who had made him

prisoner. In regard to that point the Board, not being a Court

of Criminal Appeal, did not find it necessary to intimate what

they considered that the rule of English law (the principles of

which applied in the case) ought to be. Lord Sumner said23:

" Their Lordships think that the jurisdiction which they exercise

" in appeals in criminal matters involves a general consideration

" of the evidence and of the circumstances of the case in order

" to place the irregularities complained of, if substantiated, in

" their proper relation to the whole ma tt er." Apart from the

evidence of the reply made by the private soldier in custody there

was a body of other evidence which established his guilt. Having

reviewed it, Lord Sumner said24: " I t appears to their Lordships

" that a clearer case there could hardly be, and that it would

" be the merest speculation to suppose that the jury was

" substantially influenced by the evidence of what Ibrahim said

" to Major Barrett. If not impossible, it is at any rate highly

" improbable, that this should have been so, and when the

" preponderance of unquestioned evidence is so great, their Lord-

" ships cannot in any view of the matter conclude that there has

" been any miscarriage of justice, substantial, grave, or other-

" wise ." The result was, therefore, that even if the reply of the

private soldier was inadmissible in evidence on the ground that it

was made by him in answer to his officer in whose custody he was,

its admission, having regard to all the other evidence and all the

circumstances, was not such a violation of the principles of

natural justice as would entitle the soldier to have his convictionset aside.

22 [1914] A.C. 599, 615.2* Ibid. 618. .

23 Ibid. 617.

7/29/2019 Sparks v. Queen[1964]

29/29

9 9 2HOUSE OF LORDS [ 1 9 6 4 ]

P- G. In the present case the appellant was not in custody. If his

1964 statements were not shown to have been voluntary and so ought

~ to have been excluded the result was that there was no evidenceSPABKS

o. on which a jury could convict and the ease would have ended at' the close of the case for the prosecution.

In Teper v. The Queen25 their Lordships' Board advised that

the appeal should be allowed although there was some evidence

against the appellant apart from the evidence which it was held

had been wrongly admitted. In delivering the reasons of the

Board Lord Normand said that there were several circumstances

pointing to the appellant's guilt and that it could not have been

said that there was no legal evidence to support a verdict of

guilty. He sa id26

: Their Lordships have therefore in the end

" to decide whether the appellant has shown that the improper

" admission of the hearsay evidence of identification was so

" prejudicial to the appellant, in a case where the rest of the

" evidence was weak, that the proceedings as a whole have not

" resulted in a fair trial. The test is whether on a fair considera-

" tion of the whole proceedings the Board must hold that there

" is a probability that the improper admission of hearsay evidence"tu rn ed the scale against the appellant." In the present.case

it was acknowledged that without the challenged statements

there was an absence of any weight in the scale against the

appellant.

Their Lordships have therefore humbly advised Her Majesty

that the appeal should be allowed. There will be no order as

to costs.

Solicitors: Pothecary & Barratt; Charles Russell & Co.

C. C.

" [1952] A.C. 480.26

Ibid. 492.

Documents

Sparks v. Queen[1964]